Again, the argument is not symmetrical. See my answer to Treverus.

I think one should distinguish between what some guy at the pub says after his seventh beer, and what the majority will say after a due public debate and analysis.

Yes we are. But you seem to be so grandiose so as to believe only things you dont like should be banned and things you approve of be produced.

You're the one being symmetrical.

Except that some other less naive countries will take Switzerland's place and make money for their citizens. Switzerland mostly sells to democratic countries anyway. I doubt bush fighters in Congo use Pirhanas, Sigs and Pilatus dive bombers.
Defence industry is by definition high-tech and creates a lot of high-tech jobs.

My goodness, Hash Brown, can you debate an issue objectively without making it so personal?

I'm surprised Islam hasn't been mentioned yet

You are either not reading my posts or following my argument. I have in no way supported arms trade, per se.
My OP was about the philosophy of democracy as practised here and the possibility of infringing on the rights of individuals and free eneterprise.

*big sigh**

How is symmetry even relevant? I think you are being purposefully obtuse.

People, in general, are beginning to see / pay attention / have shoved in their faces that just because someone is your friend this year does not mean that in 10 years they will still be your friend.

Just because YOU find the idea of arming your "friend" favorable does not mean that people in general do not see the danger of that "friend" turning on you with the weapons YOU provided if / when something happens which makes them not your friend.

So... the people are voting / wanting to vote in ways which limit this possibility.

They are willing to risk the so-called "danger" of reduced revenue and employment in the face of maintaining their moral values ... the same way they purposefully turn aside from the potential profit and employment which would be provided by the other undesirable enterprises mentioned.

The comparison is relevant, you simply are too obtuse to see it.

You seem be getting a bit of stick here Etienne Botes, and I have to say I don't disagree with the points of view of many posters. The mistake, I think, is the example you used to illustrate a point that democracy can run amok.

Getting away from weapons makers and suppliers, the "democracy run amok" question is a valid and interesting one. It is not taboo to talk about it or discuss as a topic. Democracy is not a perfect form of government and like any other system it has its problems and limitations.

Castro made the very vaild point that there are instances that democracy can ulitmately harm rather than help society. I remember being very concerned at the way the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were being pushed through on the back of the mood of outrage and fear after 9/11. But as we have seen, you do not need a direct democracy (such as Switzerland) to have this happen.

I personally feel that some issues are not appropriate for the public vote. For example I think it is wrong to have the death penalty even if the majority wants it. Or even things like the right not to wear a seat belt or the right to beat your children with a belt if they misbehave. So I agree with you that some issues simply should not be put to a public vote. I don't agree though, that the example you used is one of them.

Ok. Baby steps. I agree with you point. THIS is what I was talking about:

1) Someone made a comparison between manufacturing cocaine and a manufacturer like Pilatus.
2) I pointed out the direct usage of cocaine is not the same (symmetrical) as the direct usage of an aircraft trainer.

'Kay?

Yes, i do.

But to put it in a nice way:

1. Some companies in Switzerland have a long proven track record of supplying weapons to the countries that are a bit less stable.

2. Exactly the trainers you mentioned have a long history of being a cost efficient alternative to attack low-tech enemies like militias or civilian targets.

3. Pilatus does not only market them as trainers (as they write on their website), but as "COIN"- counter insurgency weapons.

4. In 2007, the not-so-stable Iraq actually short listed Pilatus for their P9M and it does not sound like they want to use it for training.

Of course, the most likely customers are the ones eager to buy cheap arms. These trainers, while high tech as a trainer, are used as a cheap substitute. This means they are not really likely to be used to attack other, trained and equipped armies, but worse.

If you only practice flying, you do not need the things under the wings as this one has:


And yes, I do think the Swiss should discuss the topic and vote.

P.S: Nobody is discussing to make Pilatus stop building planes. But if a plane is sold as "anti-insurgency" and "close support", I do not really understand why it does not count as a weapon.

The question would be where do you draw the line?

It might be wrong to beat children with a belt if they misbehave, but its equally wrong to let them carry on with their nuisances till they end up like street hooligans.

I offer you the crown of bad analogies. Your post makes, as always, some sense in itself, but fails completely to be on topic or offer any value to the discussion.

As I said in my original post, give us some examples then. You haven't yet other than the arms trade. And you've only mentioned unfettered free enterprise, nothing about rights of individuals. You started a debate without any details, examples, case studies. So give us some meat.

And we will get personal if you insists that your examples are good but ours are bad; ie your morality applies but ours doesn't. And don't discount our examples as being asymmetric; please explain what the hell that means.

Why stop at arms? Why not sell expensive watches to dictators and not open numbered bank accounts to dubious individuals?

You might be right, but what one can also infer where would one draw a line whether Democracy is taken too far or not.

Im sorry if I caused you or anyone any sort of distress. I'll go back to knitting.

Yes, I totally agree that it is not appropriate to let them carry on. My point is that the majority of people may think it is appropriate punishment to beat children with a belt* but that does not mean the majority opinion is correct and should therefore be implemented.

The strengths and weaknesses of democracy in general, and in Switzerland specifically, is an interesting debate which is being muddied in this thread by the whole weapons industry red herring.

*I doubt very much this would be the majority opinion in Switzerland but it is not unthinkable it could be a majortiy held view in other countries.

Sounds like a financially promising plan.

I would allow the individuals to easily start "foundations" to cover themselves better. I am all for privacy.

YES! What about cars? Surely they kill millions of people every year!

Disagree.

If the death penalty were put to the vote across the world, I think very few countries that have abolished it would actually bring it back.

The whole point about democracy is that you believe the majority of the people are fundamentally reasonable or sensible. This is why we allow freedom of speech even to extremists and madmen. We believe they will expose themselves through their own words and will not win a majority. As soon as a state starts kerbing certain rights, be it the right to deny the Holocaust or the right to say stupid things or be in the Super Monster Raving Loony Party, that state is effectively admitting that it doesn't really believe in the power of democracy, and is suggesting that in certain regards a little bit of benevolent dictatorship might be better because the people might do something that isn't in their own best interest.